For this first round I assume we will be giving definitions and acceptance.

First off, can I argue that security should not be a priority because security itself is bad?
But in case no I am prepared to argue pro for the exact text of the resolution.

//Definitions\
Security: "the state of being free from danger or injury" [1]
Rights: "Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting" [2]
Preferred: "preferable: more desirable than another" [3]

You can use any arguementation, just know that you are pro not con. (In the previous round you posted "can I argue that security should not be a priority because security itself is bad?).
I'll present my arguements now

The value is justice
When faced with a decision to violate other people's rights, we are presented with harms and benefits of violating said right. Even assuming the truth of the claim that the injustices of the harms can be overridden by the benefits, some individuals in these situations cannot appreciate that the added security for others can truly outweigh his sacrifice, but those in an objective power can and for that reason can make a decision to sacrifice his rights on the basis of security. If that objective perspective is impossible to achieve, if no one can weigh costs and benefits without being subject to their own personal prejudice, than the justification can never be made. We may say than that if a speculative increase in security is to overide a neccessary violation of rights, those in power must be able to objectively way costs and benefits.
This objectivity is the criterion for Justice

My arguement is that no one can achieve objectivity.

1. No one can value other people's rights because they don't apply to them.

David Luban, Professor of Philosophy in Georgetown argues
The supposed "trade off" between security and rights is too easy as long as it's a trade off of your rights for my security. This is no real trade off. As a respectable, middle-aged, white, tenured professor who leads a dull life, I know the odds are slender that I will ever need to invoke the right against self-incrimination or the right to a speedy, public trial, let alone the right not to be shipped off to the Jordanian police for interrogation. So I am likely to undervalue these rights. In my own mind, I unconsciously classify them as other people's rights. So long as the government targets only Muslims and foreigners, young men and aging clerics paring back on the rights of the accused is no tragedy. Psychologically, it is very difficult to weigh the importance of rights and civil liberties without assuming, consciously or not, that rights I and my loved ones are unlikely to need are less important than my physical security.

Under these distortions, no one has any buisness telling a small minority that their sacrifice is worth more security even on purely objective grounds.

Well because my opponent failed to answer my question I will pose two argument and we can go with whatever one we both fancy.

Security Bad:
First off my opponent is resolutionaly bound to arguing that rights should be preferred first and THEN security thus arguing that security is good. Here is where I will be arguing that it is not so. I will be arguing that security is bad whilst my opponent can retain his original argument (I will cover it later). Security is overall bad because to maintain security a country either needs massive hegemony, a powerful army or both. The problem with this is that if we are trying to guarantee our security we are living in a world of fear and that is bad for our society. If we continue in our futile search for ultimate security we can never live life to it's fullest and thus what is the point in living? Also, if we advocate security we are self-imposing threats that will inevitably come true due to the fact that two countries will want security and thus have a massive army or massive hegemony and that will ultimately result in violence. The delusion of security is merely a a prophecy of violence and it is self fulfilling.

or

Security more important:
((First we must realize that my opponent did not define his value and thus I must do so. Justice is defined as "the quality of being just or fair" [1]
The very first claim my opponent makes is incorrect. He claims // No one can value other people's rights because they don't apply to them.//
But this is just not true. According to Stanford: "every citizen has certain basic rights that the state cannot take away from them" [2] All people have the same rights and thus others peoples rights do apply to us because they are the same and are granted to everyone. My opponent then copies an argument that talks about the fact that some rights we might not use and thus we cannot make an objective claim about them but that is not necessarily true. We can see a right, such as the right to a fair and speedy trial, and say that other people will need that and/or I or a family member might need it. Assuming that people will never us a right is a pretty big assumption to make.)) Cross apply to previous argument.
Security outweighs: The simple reason this is true is that if we are not secure, we are liable to be taken over and if that happens then we loose our rights all together. Essentially, security is a prerequisite to having rights and thus it must be preferred because a) if we loose our security and someone takes us over, we have no rights anyway and b) if we take away the rights of a few to save everyone then that outweighs. As the great Spock once said, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." So as we can see, security is the most important because it guarantees us our rights as well as protects our citizens and thusly I urge a pro ballot.

Sorry for the misunderstanding... I'll argue against the argument where it says security is more important.

The first thing I want to point out is that is the resolution says "when in conflict" meaning when security conflicts with rights. The warrant my opponent gives is talking about the fact that we can value other people's rights because we all have the same basic rights. This isn't true at all. People who live in Afghanistan certainly don't have the same lifestyle as people in the United States. Secondly, it is true that everyone deserves the same basic rights, but when our own security comes in conflict other people's rights, we overvalue our security and undervalue their rights. If that's the case, and we cannot give each right their due weight when weighing costs and benefits, then how are we to know if violating that right is really the right thing to do.

His main argument talks about how without security, we cannot exercise our rights. This isn't true either. It's true that life is a prerequisite to exercising our rights, but absolute security isn't. We all tolerate risks everyday, like driving a car, and we can still execute our rights. If that's the case, than the argument doesn't make any sense.

Then he talks about how if we loose our security, than someone will take us over. This argument doesn't make any sense either because I can drive a car, which is a risk to my security, and no one will take me over. Secondly, if we do bring up national security, it isn't necessarily guaranteed that anyone will take anybody over either.

Then he provides a second point stating that, if we take the rights of the few then we can save everyone else. But never once does he say how much security would be gained by violating people's rights. Surely it wouldn't be just, or even sensible, to enslave two or three people to add small benefits to the rest of society. Secondly, he hasn't given any sort of reason as to why we should violate rights to gain security because the only reason he gave that makes security important has already been refuted and proved to be fallacious.

Now lets go over to my arguments.

Keep in mind, he never refuted any of my objectivity links to justice. If it is unrefuted that you need to have an objective power to violate other people's rights for the benefit of others, than all I have to prove is that objectivity is impossible to achieve. I have already shown that.

He then goes further to define my value of Justice. He defines it as "the quality of being just or fair", but he never gives a definition of what is just and fair. I would say that what is just and fair is to not violate innocent people's rights, even if trying to add a speculative increase in security.

Therefore what is left is proof that no one cannot be biased, especially when the biased person's security comes in conflict with other people's rights. If you cannot give each right their due weight on the grand scale of cost and benefit, then it would be unjust to violate them in the first place.

//The first thing I want to point out is that is the resolution says "when in conflict" meaning when security conflicts with rights.//
I thought you meant in times of conflict. O.o

Here is what I am going to argue, that security is overall bad but if we MUST prefer one or the other, security is better. So I will be using both of my arguments from the previous round so extend my security bad but please don't take off points for my opponent not refuting it (yet) because there was a misunderstanding.

// The warrant my opponent gives is talking about the fact that we can value other people's rights because we all have the same basic rights. This isn't true at all. People who live in Afghanistan certainly don't have the same lifestyle as people in the United States.//
It is true that the lifestyle varies from country to country but within a country it is pretty constant. The Stanford argument is also talking about rights in America.

//Secondly, it is true that everyone deserves the same basic rights, but when our own security comes in conflict other people's rights, we overvalue our security and undervalue their rights. If that's the case, and we cannot give each right their due weight when weighing costs and benefits, then how are we to know if violating that right is really the right thing to do.//
All you did here was provide a claim with nothing to back it up. Here I could say that we don't and it'd be your word vs mine. Regarding it being "the right thing to do", right and wrong are entirely subjective and thus you cannot make an objective claiming regarding them. For some X violation of rights is always good whilst to others it is bad.

//His main argument talks about how without security, we cannot exercise our rights. This isn't true either. It's true that life is a prerequisite to exercising our rights, but absolute security isn't. We all tolerate risks everyday, like driving a car, and we can still execute our rights. If that's the case, than the argument doesn't make any sense.//
Again, in conflict, if we do not have security then we will be taken over and have no rights. My opponent ignores this and thus it flows through the round.

//Then he talks about how if we loose our security, than someone will take us over. This argument doesn't make any sense either because I can drive a car, which is a risk to my security, and no one will take me over. Secondly, if we do bring up national security, it isn't necessarily guaranteed that anyone will take anybody over either.//
Extend my previous argument and add this, if we have security, by the very definition it is assured we wont be taken over because it is the state of being free from danger. My argument still stands here and my opponent has done minimal work to refute it.

//Then he provides a second point stating that, if we take the rights of the few then we can save everyone else. But never once does he say how much security would be gained by violating people's rights. Surely it wouldn't be just, or even sensible, to enslave two or three people to add small benefits to the rest of society. Secondly, he hasn't given any sort of reason as to why we should violate rights to gain security because the only reason he gave that makes security important has already been refuted and proved to be fallacious.//
Here my opponent makes a HUGE leap of faith saying that taking away people rights is enslaving them. Also, if we can have security by violating 3 people rights, we assure that they will not be taken over and thus their rights can remain in tact. You have not refuted the reason why security is important. You missed most of the argument.

My opponent has not shown that objectivity is impossible in the case of rights and I will show you one more thing. Does everyone in America (theoretically) have the same rights under the constitution? _____________

Just is proper and fair is free from bias. There. Counterdefinition.

So essentially what I will be arguing is that security is overall bad but if we must choose to protect security or rights in times of conflict, then security is better.